Note: Transcripts may contain errors. If you wish to re-use all, or part of, a transcript, please contact CBC for permission. Please check the corresponding audio before quoting in print. Copyright © CBC 2019

The AIH Transcript for November 5, 2019

Hosts: Carol Off and Karen Gordon

Prologue

CAROL OFF: Hello. I'm Carol Off.

KAREN GORDON: Good evening. I'm Karen Gordon. This is As It Happens.

[Music: Theme]

KG: Tonight...

CO: Endurance test. For more than a century, the LeBaron family has lived in a Mormon community in Mexico -- and then yesterday, gunmen killed at least nine members of that family while they were traveling.

KG: Quid pro quotes. With the impeachment inquiry into US President Donald Trump dividing the country -- a lawyer with the firm representing the original whistleblower says calls to identify their client are dangerous.

CO: No more busting our chops. China will once again import Canadian pork and beef -- but Canada's former ambassador to Beijing says a true diplomatic thaw is not on the menu yet.

KG: Polaris opposites. At first the Oscar Peterson Trio and Vancouver punk legends D.O.A don't have much in common -- and when you learn they both won Polaris Heritage Prizes, they still don't.

CO: The result seemed certain -- but then he got off track. And I'll speak with the Oakland transit worker who pulled that guy out of the path of an oncoming train with a split second to spare.

KG: And make no mistake: we should make some mistakes. To succeed, you must fail -- but to succeed at failing, our guest helpfully says you have to fail only about 15 percent of the time. As It Happens. The Tuesday Edition. Radio that finds this whole idea a real breath of fresh error.

[Music: Theme]

Part 1: 'It's just devastating,' says relative of 9 Americans killed in Mexico

Mexico Mormon deaths

Guests: Ruth Wariner

KG: A Mormon community in Mexico is grief stricken today. Mexican officials have confirmed the deaths of at least nine people -- all members of the LeBaron family in northern Mexico. The Mormon family -- three adults, six children -- had been traveling in a convoy of vehicles in the Mexican state of Chihuahua when their car was ambushed by gunmen and set on fire. Reports suggest the attack was carried out by a drug cartel. The LeBaron family, also known as Colonia LeBaron, have lived in northern Mexico for more than 100 years now. And this isn't the first time they've faced violence. Ruth Wariner grew up in Colonia LeBaron and later moved to the US. She's no longer a Mormon, but keeps in touch with her LeBaron relatives in Mexico. We reached her in Portland, Oregon.

CO: Ruth the news of these deaths in Mexico -- it's just shocking, isn't it? How is your family coping?

RUTH WARINER: We're still shocked. It's horrific. We haven't had time to recover. And I'm sure they're scrambling to try to find out -- and working with the authorities -- to try to find out what exactly happened and what the motivations behind these horrific murders that took place -- we are trying to understand it.

CO: And as you say, so many details, so much information (that) we don't have. We don't even really know how many victims -- how many people were killed in this convoy.

RW: They're looking for survivors. They're still looking for children -- missing children. Yes.

CO: They were traveling in a convoy of vehicles. Can you describe what journey they were on? What can you tell us about where they were going and how they were going there?

RW: In Mexico -- I grew up in Colonia LeBaron, and that is where that caravan was on their way to.

CO: What do you know at this point as to what happened?

RW: What I understand -- most I heard from my brother, who still lives in Colonial LeBaron and what he has told me and whatever I also read in the news -- is that my niece Rhonita was traveling in her car, she ended up having a flat tire and was on the side of the road and was ambushed by a group of what we believe and what authorities so far believe are the Mexican drug cartels. And she was shot and killed. And four of her children were shot with her and they burned the car. There were two other mothers killed -- cousins of mine, people that I haven't met, and three of their children, from my understanding. And several children ran away. There have been a couple that have been found on the side of the road still living. But again, they're still in the middle of the search.

CO: Ruth, I'm so sorry.

RW: Thank you.

CO: And the children of Rhonita -- of your niece -- these were twins under the age of one...

RW: They were six months old.

CO: And there was an 11-year-old.

RW: And an 8-year-old, I believe is what the age were.

CO: Do you have any idea? I mean, why would a drug cartel want to target a group of Mormons traveling in a convoy?

RW: I haven't lived in the LeBaron for a very long time. But we have been targeted by the Mexican drug cartels through kidnappings of our children in the past. And this is about 10 years ago that I found out that one of my nephews and other one of my nephews was kidnaped at gunpoint. And (they) asked my family for a million dollar ransom. We didn't have that kind of cash. And eventually a week later, they let the boy, the teenage boy, my nephew go. But my family started to speak out against the drug cartels, not confronting them or trying to fight them, but just pleading with them to stop kidnaping their children basically because there was no way where our families are so big, so many children, that there'd be no ending to the kidnappings and the ransoms and all of that. And one particular nephew, my nephew Benji, started to speak out.

CO: And what happened to Benjamin?

RW: The initial kidnaping of his younger brother was in May of 2009. And within a few months -- and in fact it was in July, that black SUVs came to his house. And they threw grenades into their house, broke into the house, assaulted his wife and took Benji. His brother-in-law was a neighbour and came over to find out what was going on. And they ended up taking both of the gentlemen to our family's graveyard, hung them there, and left a note of warning for our community to stop speaking out against the cartels. And this was again 10 years ago.

CO: Good grief. Did they ever at any point -- did the family, this very large extended family, this community of Colonia LeBaron -- did they ever think of maybe leaving Mexico because of all the violence?

RW: That's a good question. My oldest brother still lives in LeBaron and I asked him that when I was on the phone with him and he didn't have an answer. Our parents -- my grandfather started the community to have a safe place for people to live and to practice the religion the way that they wanted to live, to farm their land, to create a peaceful community.

CO: This is what they call a breakaway Mormon group that moved to Mexico because they were there practicing polygamy. And it was against the law in the United States. Is that right?

RW: That's exactly right. In 1893, the law made it official that polygamy was illegal in this country. And several polygamist families -- some moved to Canada and some moved to Mexico.

CO: And now you're trying to learn what you can about this attack. Some have said it might be a mistaken identity. It might be they were targeted. We don't know. But since you talked to your brother, what are they doing to keep themselves safe at this point?

RW: Well, I know things have -- especially during the first attack, the one that they had 10 years ago, I know that they built barracks, army barracks, and brought in soldiers to help protect the family. And I'm not sure what's going to happen now. I have no idea how they would take on the Mexican drug cartel. That's a big order for a fundamentalist Mormon community. Which they're not all polygamists anymore. Most of them still believe in my father and his teachings, but the community is much more advanced and not everybody there still is polygamy. That just happens to be what its origins are.

CO: As you know there is tremendous violence around the drug cartels -- but these are American colonies, aren't they? And so the United States will get involved. We're hearing Donald Trump is already tweeting about what cooperation the United States is going to offer, calling them monsters who did this. What can the United States do at this point, do you think?

RW: I think they have to have that conversation with the government in Mexico to see if that's going to be something that they want. I mean, we lost Mexicans in our country to violence just a few months ago in El Paso, Texas. And, you know, it's a different kind of violence and for different reasons. And I think that both governments should definitely be in conversation about what's going on, because these rows are coming to us, to the United States. We're the ones buying the drugs. So should there be a conversation? Absolutely. And not just about the Mexican drug cartels, but our own role in the problem.

CO: Well Ruth -- again -- I'm so sorry for your loss and for this tragedy. We'll be following this story. But I really appreciate that you would give us this background today. Thank you.

RW: Thank you.

KG: Ruth Wariner grew up in Colonial LeBaron -- a Mormon community in the Mexican state of Chihuahua. She is no longer a Mormon and now lives in Portland, Oregon -- which is where we reached her. For more on this story visit our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

China and Canadian meat

Guest: Guy St-Jacques

KG: The Trudeau government may finally be making some headway with China. This afternoon, the Prime Minister announced that Beijing is lifting the ban on Canadian pork and beef imports. That move will help Chinese consumers who are facing higher prices due to a swine flu outbreak. But it's less clear what it will mean for Canadian canola producers who are still cut out of the Chinese market. And then there are Michael Kovrig and Michael Spavor -- the two Canadians who've been detained in China for the better part of a year. Guy St-Jacques is a former Canadian ambassador to China. We reached him in Montreal.

CO: Mr. St-Jacques why do you think China has made this decision?

GUY ST-JACQUES: Well, I think it was a question of necessity for them. They had no choice but to resume imports of Canadian meat, especially Canadian pork. And I base this on the severity of the African swine flu epidemic that is having a huge impact on the swine industry in China. And knowing that China is the first world producer of pork, you can imagine that there has been very important impact -- they have probably lost 15 to 20 million tons of pork. And what they have done they use all the reserve that they had accumulated. They also imported as much as they could from Brazil and Europe. But now those sources are gone. In the meantime, the price of pork has increased by 70 to 100 percent in China. And you can imagine you know the clamor from 1.4-billion Chinese consumers it was bound to happen at some point.

CO: But it is not such a large amount. And you know better than most that China does not like to lose face. It doesn't like to declare that maybe they've made a mistake. So what kind of decision is this on the part of the Chinese? How difficult might it have been?

GUY ST-JACQUES: Well, again, I think they were forced to do it. But they know also that this was going to be well received. I should add that in fact I've heard that there is a debate going on in Beijing. Some people are saying that Xi Jinping has been too tough on Canada. That Canada has been a friend of China. And there have been a few small gestures. The first I would point to is the fact that they give agreement to the candidacy of Dominic Barton as the new ambassador to China. Of course, there was an element of reciprocity and as much as they needed agreement for their own ambassador. Another gesture is that October 1st when they celebrated the 70th anniversary of the foundation of the People's Republic of China, President Xi Jinping gave the Medal of Freedom, which is the highest decoration that a foreigner can receive in China -- he gave that to an old Canadian lady, Mrs. Isabel Crook who has lived most of her life in China. You know for neutral observer seeing the Chinese president giving a medal to a Canadian, I think we have to put that as a small but important gesture.

CO: But we point out that President Xi has had a very hard line that people have criticized him for that. But it goes back to when Canada agreed to an American request to detain this Huawei executive, Meng Wanzhou. She's still under house arrest in Vancouver awaiting that extradition decision. That hasn't changed. So should we read anything into this? Are they less interested in the fate of Meng Wanzhou at this point?

GUY ST-JACQUES: Well, they have been very clear -- even after the arrival of Mr. Barton you know they said that Canada had to return Mrs. Meng, and if we were not going to comply with their request we should not expect the relationship to get back to normal. And so knowing that the extradition process could take many years, in fact we have to be ready for some turbulence in the relationship, the next democracy sword that is hanging there is the decision that the federal government will have to make on whether it allows or not Huawei to take part in 5G development in Canada because we have been warned on that by the Chinese if we don't allow Huawei to work in Canada there will be further measures. So you know it's not the time to celebrate yet. I'm very happy for the pork producers who had been suffering very much. I should add also that in terms of our canola exports, yes, there has been a huge impact. Brian Innes of the Canola Council said that this year our exports are down to 25 percent of what they were last year. So a significant impact for our producers. This has translated in the drop of 10 percent of the price. So overall, that's about a billion dollars in lost revenues for canola producers.

CO: But things are getting better for them, though.

GUY ST-JACQUES: Yeah, it's getting better. And I've looked at the trade data for the first eight months of the year, this year our exports are down 5.2 percent. But if you include the goal that is going to Hong Kong and we know that in fact the end destination is the Bank of China because they have been buying a lot of gold this year. Well, our exports are down 2.8 percent compared to last year. Yes, we have suffered in terms of you know probably 3 or 4 billion dollars less than canola exports. But the Chinese have increased their imports of wheat by about 70 percent and some other sectors are doing better, so it's a mixed picture. But again, in the case of pork I think they had no choice but to allow the resumption of trade.

CO: Okay we're talking about trade but of course there is a very very big issue here, and that is the fate of two men: Michael Spavor and Michael Kovrig. These two Canadians who, as far as we know, are still being treated quite badly in the prison system in China. No news there.

GUY ST-JACQUES: No. And there won't be any movement for some time because the Chinese couldn't have been very clear. They said as long as Mrs. Meng is detained, we should not expect any movement. And I should add that while they have been formally arrested, they have not yet been formally charged. And there is an important distinction there, because once formally charge then the judiciary process would have to start and it would take about 18 months before they would be sentenced. And in the Chinese system, once you are formally charged you are found guilty in 99.9% of the cases.

CO: Well we'll continue to follow that story. But meanwhile, I appreciate your time today Mr. St-Jacques. Thank you.

GUY ST-JACQUES: Thank you very much.

KG: Guy St-Jacques is a former Canadian ambassador to China. We reached him in Montreal.

[Music]

Failure study

Guest: Bob Wilson

KG: We've all had someone tell us that it's okay. That you can always learn from your mistakes. That anyone can spill their Orange Julius all over a conference table, ruining a laptop and at least two colleagues' suits -- just for example. But according to new research published today, that's only partly true or it's only true of the first 15 percent of your mistakes. Anything beyond that starts getting in the way. Bob Wilson is an assistant professor at the University of Arizona and the lead author of the study. We reached Mr. Wilson in Tucson.

CO: Professor Wilson, why is it okay, even beneficial, to fail?

BOB WILSON: Failure is how we learn. And a certain amount of failure is actually how we learn best. One way to maybe understand this sweet spot for learning is to consider extreme cases. So imagine, you know a task that's way too easy would be a college student going back to kindergarten. And in that situation you're going to ace all that kindergarten tests and you're not going to learn anything because you already know what you need to know. Conversely if I try an example of hard training is I take a kindergartner and put them in freshman calculus and they're not going to learn anything because they've not got the knowledge to begin with to build on. And so in between those two cases, there's sort of the sweet spot of difficulty and that's where you're going to learn best. And that's what we showed in this paper for a particular class of problems and a particular type of learning.

CO: So how did you determine that that sweet spot was at 85 percent success or 15 percent failure?

BW: Yes. So we made a mathematical model. So we took a learning rule that comes from machine learning -- and what we did is we took that learning algorithm and we applied it to a very very simple kind of task. An example of this would be if I'm Google and I'm trying to train a neural network to classify a picture as either a picture of a dog or a cat -- and in this special circumstance, we can actually prove that that sweet spot of difficulty with the algorithm will learn the fastest is if the difficulty is fixed at 85 percent accuracy or conversely 15 percent errors.

CO: But what convinces you? Do you think really that this would apply to human learning -- that humans would respond the same way as a neural network?

BW: So this is the hope. So I'm a psychologist and a cognitive scientist. So my primary interest is in people and in animals. How are we learning? And there's a long literature in psychology and education, in animal training and a more recent literature, obviously in artificial intelligence that has come up with this idea that's called the zone of proximal learning. And it is especially applied in education where kids learn best when they're faced with a task just beyond what they can currently do. And so there's been this idea and there's been quite a lot of empirical work to suggest that that is true, that people do actually learn best and they do prefer to do things -- especially kids -- that are right on the edge of what they can do. So what we think is that we're getting something here mathematically and we're building towards a sort of formal mathematical theory that can account for at least some of those previous results that sort of got some quantitative and mathematical results behind it.

CO: But isn't it true of people -- I mean just by observation -- that some people, some kids or adults, they love a challenge. They like to exceed their grasp and will take on something. Whereas others become quickly frustrated and defeated with things that they can't immediately do. So isn't it personality and character a lot to do with this?

BW: Yeah, that's definitely part of it. And this is a challenge for us going forward as we try to test the predictions of this model in people is exactly these kinds of psychological factors. We do think that this is going to be a component for all people. But of course there are other things going on. And one driver of decisions as well. And you know what kind of difficulty of task you prefer is how much do you care about getting the right answer and getting the reward versus how much do you care about learning and improving, you know, sort of this growth mindset. And what we think is, yes, that's a big individual difference, but also likely that balance between 'do I prefer reward' 'do I prefer exploiting and getting the right thing' versus exploring and learning something new -- that balance probably changes throughout life. So kids likely put that balance more on learning. Adults it's more important often that you get the right answer, right. If you're a doctor and you're making diagnoses of you know is this mole something you should worry about or not -- you don't want a doctor who's 85 percent correct, you want a doctor who is 100 percent correct. But maybe during med school while they're learning and while their decisions don't make any difference, then maybe 85 percent correct or somewhere around there making some mistakes so they can learn so they can ultimately get to 100 percent accuracy in a condition where it really matters, that's the kind of thing that we're looking for.

CO: And do you think that educators can use your 85 percent rule to effectively teach people?

BW: So I think the direct application of 85 percent -- of the 85 percent rule -- is pretty limited. But the more general point that there is this sweet spot and that you can prove it even for machines and you can put the focus more on learning than on perfection, I think that's something where that broader point applies. Because I think one of the problems we have in education right now is that we put a lot of emphasis from a very early age on testing and on optimal performance and perfect scores and we praise kids for doing really well. And not enough emphasis on trying things out where you are going to make mistakes but you're going to learn from those mistakes.

CO: All right. We'll leave it there. And before I make any more mistakes or you make mistakes -- well we can learn from them I guess.

BW: Exactly.

CO: Professor Wilson thank you.

BW: Thank you.

KG: Bob Wilson is an assistant professor of cognition and neural systems at the University of Arizona. We reached him in Tucson, Arizona.

[Music]

Part 2: Watch this California transit worker save a man from an oncoming train

Whistleblower anonymity

Guest: Brad Moss

KG: The United States ambassador to the European Union has decided that his testimony about Donald Trump's dealings with Ukraine needed a little update. Ambassador Gordon Sondland now says he told a top Ukrainian official that if the Ukrainian government didn't announce a corruption investigation involving Mr. Trump's potential Democratic challenger then the Ukraine was unlikely to get military aid. The revelations come as President Trump takes aim at the anonymous whistleblower whose concerns prompted the current congressional investigation. President Trump and Republican Senator Rand Paul are both calling for the identity of the US intelligence employee to be exposed. Brad Moss is a lawyer with the firm representing the whistleblower. Mr. Moss has not dealt directly with the case, which allows him to speak publicly about it. He's in Washington, D.C.

CO: Mr. Moss, what is at stake if the identity of this whistleblower is actually exposed?

BRAD MOSS: Sure. So there's two different issues that are at stake. One is obviously the professional career of this whistleblower. If she -- sorry -- if he or she is outed and identified, they'll have the equivalent of a scarlet letter on them wherever they go, no matter what their background credentials were. We've certainly seen individuals who were outed in the past you think of Valerie Plame Wilson, whose professional career is pretty much come to an end. They can't quite do their job anymore. They're not trusted in the government no matter whether or not what they did was right and legal or not. So that's obvious career side. But the greater concern at the moment has to be their physical safety. There's you know a lot of vitriol, a lot of rhetoric going back and forth. There's a lot of nasty threats being made against the lawyers -- and death threats. You can only imagine what would happen if this person is positively identified, the level of security that would have to be implemented going forward for who knows how long in order to ensure their physical safety.

CO: But Senator Rand Paul and others -- I think even Mr. Trump himself -- have said that everyone knows who the whistleblower is and that they say the media's job is to report it. That this person should be exposed, they should be outed is as public knowledge. What do you say to that?

BM: Well, first of all, no -- not everyone actually knows who the whistleblower is. In fact, very few people do. There is a rumor, there is speculation, about who the whistleblower may or may not be. But there has been no confirmation. Certainly the whistleblower has not chosen to go public. The legal team is not going to confirm or deny the speculation about who the whistleblower may or may not be. And it remains the fact that under federal law this person is entitled to anonymity as part of the whistleblower process unless they want to come forward. And everybody who's trying to get up in the idea that this is a person that the president has a right to face his accuser -- they're conflating what is a constitutional right in the United States in a criminal trial. It's the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution that allows you to confront your accusers. That only pertains to a criminal proceeding. The impeachment process is not a criminal proceeding. There is no Sixth Amendment right in play. This is a political circus that the president and his allies are trying to push forward. They're trying to make this about the whistleblower as opposed to the substance of what the whistleblower reported.

CO: But surely the whistleblower knew or suspected that this was a possibility given what he or she was putting into the public domain. And given the state of threat and innuendo and vitriol in Washington and the White House -- should you not prepare yourself for that if you're going to become a whistleblower in Trump's Washington?

BM: Well, to be fair when the whistleblower went through the process they went through what is supposed to be a confidential process. They went through the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act which is a statute that allows individuals within the intelligence community to submit a confidential complaint to the inspector general -- a complaint that itself is usually classified. So the whistleblower had no reason to believe anyone in the public would ever know anything about this because these types of complaints are always kept confidential. There is anywhere from 10 to 15 of these types of complaints filed every year with the inspector general. And no one in the public knows about it because they're always handled within the authorized channels. The only reason this one became so public is obviously because of the individual against whom it was made, which is the president.

CO: At some point -- I guess at this point -- does it really matter what the whistleblower has said given that so much has been confirmed and corroborated on the record?

BM: I would certainly say no, it doesn't. It doesn't matter what the whistleblower did or did not say, it doesn't matter what the whistleblower's motivations were as far as I'm concerned. Whether or not they were the most anti-Trump person on the planet, it wouldn't matter because all the whistleblower had in his or her control was the ability to submit the complaint. They had no control over what the inspector general would do. And remember that inspector general was nominated by Donald Trump. They had no control over what the director of national intelligence would do. And the DNI, of course, was nominated by Donald Trump. They also had no control over what Congress would do with it. All they did, they were basically the person in the theater yelling fire and pulling the fire alarm to attack them and to smear them, saying how dare you notify other people of a potential threat. It is ridiculous and it's disgusting.

CO: Just on the substance of the investigation, which is into whether or not there was a quid pro quo in the relationship between the President of the United States and the President of Ukraine. We heard from the United States ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland today. What do you make of what Mr. Sondland is actually revealing today?

BM: Yes. So you know as more details have come out, as more people with firsthand knowledge testified, and as people such as Mr. Taylor, Mr. Volker, and Lieutenant Colonel Vindman have testified, the full record and the clarification of testimony by people like Ambassador Sondland -- makes clear that there was at least an attempt by the White House, by Mr. Trump, and his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, to force some type of quid pro quo with the Ukrainians that in exchange for official acts of the US government -- whether it's the military aid or the White House visit or any number of things in exchange for that the Ukrainians were going to have to do the president's personal political bidding, mainly making public announcement of an investigation into Burisma and the Bidens, which is something that you only would do if you wanted an optical victory. Normally if run an investigation the last thing you do is tell anybody about it. You keep it quiet while you run the investigation. But what Donald Trump wanted was a public announcement of an investigation that would damage his main political rival just as we were starting up the re-election campaign.

CO: At the same time the claims by Mr. Trump and by his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani -- their claim is that they were trying -- if they stopped the foreign aid it was only to get Ukraine to investigate corruption, that they were trying to fight corruption. And it was an anti-corruption statement they wanted. Isn't that still a valid defense on their part?

BM: It would be valid if they were running it, one, through the normal authorized channels. And they certainly didn't need the president directly intervening to get the Ukrainians to do that. But, two, it would make more sense if there was any indication that the FBI had viewed any of these actions by Burisma and by Hunter Biden as violating US law or otherwise being corrupt. There is no such indication. This was a quid pro quo at its very core to ensure that official government acts --official US government acts -- were conditioned on the Ukrainians taking action that would interfere in U.S. domestic politics. That is the very definition of extortion and bribery under US federal laws.

CO: We will leave it there. Of course we'll be following this story. Mr. Moss, thank you.

BM: Absolutely. Anytime.

KG: Brad Moss is a lawyer with the firm representing the whistleblower whose concerns prompted the investigation into Donald Trump's dealings with Ukraine. We reached Mr. Moss in Washington, D.C.

[Music]

Eli Pasquale

KG: According to SportsNet reporter Michael Grange, his laser focus and unshakable determination helped forge one of the most remarkable careers any Canadian basketball player has ever had. He was writing about Eli Pasquale, the Canadian point guard who died yesterday of cancer at the age of 59. He was originally from Ontario. But in the early 80s, Mr. Pasquale led the University of Victoria men's basketball team to five championships in a row. He also played on Canada's national team and competed at two Olympics. Ken Shields was Mr. Pasquale's coach at University of Victoria. Here's some of what he said about Mr. Pasquale in an interview this morning with the CBC's Gregor Craigie.

SOUNDCLIP

KEN SHIELDS: An example of his commitment was -- in our first training session off the court, he finished second in the conditioning drill. He never finished second in another conditioning drill for five years. He was first in every single conditioning drill. So he led by example. He was fiercely competitive. He loved to practice, and we both loved to practice. And so he was a wonderful guy to have on our team. We had other excellent players, as everyone knows. But Eli brought with him something that you can't teach and that is passion to excel. And he was tremendously gifted in that area as well as others.

GREGOR CRAIGIE: And how do you think he paved the way for some of the Canadian stars who followed? Steve Nash obviously comes to mind here in Victoria and others as well who went on to the NBA.

KEN SHIELDS: Well, Steve has always credited Eli as having a huge influence on him. I mean, he used to come in and join our scrimmages as well. And when asked who is the best point guard, he would always say Eli Pasquale -- best point guard ever to play in Canada. And yes, he had an influence. And Eli would have been in the NBA in today's world. And he got drafted by the Seattle Supersonics. But in those days, there were no international -- virtually one or two international players in the NBA. He was the player of the game in the inner squad game in Seattle. And they kept a fellow named Danny Young over Eli. And they had drafted Danny Young the second round and didn't want to make it look like they made a bad choice. And basically, you know, Eli never made it. And Jack Sikma and all the players were astounded when he was released.

KG: That was former University of Victoria basketball coach Ken Shields on the CBC program "On The Coast" this morning, speaking about Eli Pasquale. The Canadian basketball player died yesterday at the age of 59.

[Music]

Oakland transit rescue

Guest: John O’Connor

KG: It was a busy night at Oakland's Coliseum LRT station in California on Sunday. Just as an oncoming train approached the packed platform, a man accidentally fell onto the tracks. With seconds to spare, veteran transit worker John O'Connor stepped in to try and help. What happened next was caught on video and shared widely online. We reached John O'Connor in Oakland.

CO: John, first of all can you describe the scene on the platform before this happened? It looks like it's pretty crowded.

JOHN O'CONNOR: Yeah. For the events at the Coliseum, especially Raider games and A's =(Athletics) games, it gets very crowded.

CO: Did you notice this man before he fell? Did he come to your attention?

JOHN O'CONNOR: No. I saw him with my peripheral vision. I just saw him go into the track. I had no idea he was coming. I just saw him fall.

CO: But you can see on the video and it's so unsettling is that this train is coming quickly into the station just as this man falls in front of it. At what point did you know you had to do something?

JOHN O'CONNOR: The minute I saw him going down. And actually my perception, everything kind of just slowed down. So I saw him. I saw the headlights on the train. And you know I didn't want to see him die because he would have either died or been severely maimed for life. I mean, I didn't have time to think. I just grabbed him.

CO: It must be a movie that's played in your head a dozen times. Describe exactly what you did. What you remember doing.

JOHN O'CONNOR: I saw him and the headlights in the background. And honestly I'll tell you I thought when I was reviewing it in my mind, I thought I kind of dove and rolled and pulled him up. But it turns out I just grabbed him. You know, I grabbed him behind his shoulders and that was that. I was a little angry when we first stopped and then I stopped and thought about it and just gave him a hug.

CO: It almost looks like his legs didn't make it. That's how close this came. You just got him out and that train went just hurtling past.

JOHN O'CONNOR: Yeah. If it was somebody else, I would say it was amazing.

CO: But he's a big guy. So did you just have a real surge of strength there do you think?

JOHN O'CONNOR: Well, like I say you know I try to stay humble but I'm not a weak individual either. So probably a combination of adrenaline and the fact that you I don't work out enough anymore but you know, like I said, I've never been a weak guy either. I used to move furniture for a living.

CO: And now you save lives. So you had this guy out. And what how did you react? What did you say to him? What did you do?

JOHN O'CONNOR: I said something not quite as nice at first then as he was sitting on the platform I took a step back and then he put his hand out because the Raider fans were all telling him you know hey man this guy just saved your life. And I knew he had just come from the Coliseum and having a good time. So I calmed down a little. I think maybe the adrenaline took over in that. So I helped him up and I just gave him a hug.

CO: Did he need a hug at that point?

JOHN O'CONNOR: I think we both could have used a hug at that point. We can use some more hugs in the world, right.

CO: How did people react? What was the scene on the platform?

JOHN O'CONNOR: Very flattered by the way people act. Everybody was patting me on my back, clapping, and just cheering, telling me "good job." You know I still -- as I come into work today I have people stop me in the street and want to shake my hand, and tell me thank you. So it is very flattering, you know.

CO: And what do you know about the fall? He was having a good time. He looks like he is staggering a bit. What do you know about how he came to fall in front of the train?

JOHN O'CONNOR: Because I've seen the video since and my judgment was a little off because I thought the train was a little further back. But it appears that he was trying to walk around me. I spoke to my co-worker, who's another transportation supervisor that had seen him. He was trying to get to Sacramento. And we don't provide service to Sacramento. The passengers on another train had directed him to go down across the street for an Amtrak train. So I really don't honestly know what was going on in his head.

CO: And what happened to him after you rescued him?

JOHN O'CONNOR: Well, I got him up and then another supervisor came along and I just asked them to watch him because I had to ID him and get his phone out of the track way as well.

CO: Oh his phone had fallen and he was down on the track.

JOHN O'CONNOR: I think he was on his phone when he walked and he dropped that. I might have let it go too. Yeah so then I just went downstairs and you know ID him for the police and just told me, Hey man have a good day and pay it forward.

CO: Pay it forward.

JOHN O'CONNOR: Yeah.

CO: That's a lot of paying. Do you know how he's doing since? Do you know anything about what happened?

JOHN O'CONNOR: No, ma'am. It's my understanding that we have reached -- the district -- has reached out to him. I guess he gave the wrong phone number. But at this time, we have yet to hear from him.

CO: You stayed at work after that, didn't you?

JOHN O'CONNOR: Yes, ma'am.

CO: Just finished your shift. And how difficult was that? I mean what was going through your mind as you stayed at work -- and I'm sure you were thinking about that.

JOHN O'CONNOR: Not really. I mean, I'll be honest with you, I'm not really prone to panic. So that's what we're supposed to do. That's what they're paying me for. I hate it when they say it, but that's what they pay you the big bucks, right? If you cash the check, do the job. So we're here to get our passengers where they want to go safely and on time if we can help it.

CO: Well sometimes some people go beyond the call of duty and I think if I was in trouble you're the guy I'd want nearby.

JOHN O'CONNOR: You know what? I've thought about that part -- and I'd like to think, you know, other people would do the same. In reality, people say you know not a lot of people would and all this other stuff. But in my mindset is, how would you not.

CO: John thank you for being there. And thank you for speaking with us.

JOHN O'CONNOR: Thank you very much. And you have a great day.

CO: You too.

KG: John O'Connor is a transportation supervisor at Bay Area Rapid Transit. We reached him in Oakland today. And you can see the video of Mr. O'Connor's dramatic rescue our website: cbc.ca/aih.

[Music]

Calvin Hawley

KG: Calvin Hawley has been waiting a long time for something that he said should have been an easy fix. Many many many years ago, the curb outside his home in Winnipeg was destroyed by a city snow removal truck. So he reported it, hoping that the city would get to it in the spring. But the spring came and nothing happened. And then another. And then another. It's been 26 years, and now he's been told he's going to have to wait a lot longer. Mr. Hawley told CBC Manitoba about the saga.

SOUNDCLIP

CALVIN HAWLEY: Well, it was the morning -- wee hours of the morning -- of January 26, 1993. And yes that is 26 years ago -- almost 27 in fact. I was just doing the math. And the reason I know that it was that day is because that was the day that my son was born. So it sticks in my head. And it's a little bit of a -- well it was a red letter day for a whole bunch of reasons. Good on one side with our son. And not so good with this.

REPORTER: So how soon after you saw that damage -- I mean it was a busy time. You just had a child. How long after that did you contact the city to say, Hey, this is what happened, can you fix it?

CALVIN HAWLEY: It would have been in the probably early spring. You know at the time as you say, lots going on and winter. And they're not going to come out -- we had no expectation of them repairing concrete in the middle of winter. But a reasonable expectation that somebody might come around and check on these things. And so we called it in. I don't remember the specific day or time, but it would've been in early spring of 93. Logged it. And then that's kind of where the story began or the saga began. And multiple phone calls over the years and multiple times being told, oh we don't have any report or any record of your report, but we've changed systems. I don't know how many times the city changed their logging system, but that was almost the consistent answer every time.

REPORTER: So now you've asked them to repair it again. Now they're on this 311 system where you call in and there is actually a record of the call. What have you been told now?

CALVIN HAWLEY: The estimated resolution time that was noted was June 26, 2037 -- 20 years minus 8 days in the future.

REPORTER: What were you thinking when you saw that?

CALVIN HAWLEY: Words that I cannot say on camera.

KG: That was Winnipeg resident Calvin Hawley speaking with CBC Manitoba reporter Eleanor Coopsammy.

[Music]

Part 3: Calgary care worker

Calgary care worker

Guest: Rebecca Opoku

KG: Deborah Onwu's job wasn't easy, but it certainly wasn't supposed to be life threatening. The youth care worker was fatally stabbed while visiting a client at an assisted living home in Calgary last month. And at a vigil for Ms. Onwu this weekend, her friends and family made it clear that while they're grieving, they're also angry and ready to fight for change in an industry where too many care workers feel unsafe on the job. Rebecca Opoku is a close friend of Ms. Onwu, and a care worker herself. We reached her in Calgary.

CO: Rebecca, can you tell us about your friend and why she was so committed to this youth care work?

REBECCA OPOKU: My friend Debbie -- we have been friends for I would say maybe about eight years. She had moved from Toronto to come to live in Calgary, and we had met in our church that we used to attend. Debbie, by nature was a very very giving person. So for example, she was in this particular agency and had worked for them for about a good six years up until the time of her death.

CO: And first of all I want to apologize to you. I know you have a very sore throat, and I really appreciate that you're speaking with this. I know it must hurt. But can you tell us a bit about what you know, what happened on October 25th -- the day that Debbie Onwu died?

RO: Debbie was scheduled to work on the night of the 24th. Her shift was beginning for my between, I believe, 11:00 in the night till 7:00 in the morning. So she was there doing a regular job, a shift that she has done many times before. We woke up the next morning, which is the 25th, to hear about her tragic death.

CO: She was allegedly stabbed to death by one of her clients, is that right?

RO: Yes.

CO: And she was alone in the room with this man, this young man.

RO: That is what we know so far.

CO: What do you know about the policy of this place where she was working? Why would she be alone in this facility with somebody who was known to be dangerous or violent?

RO: That is part of the protest and the many questions that we as friends and family have because we know from speaking to other staff that have worked in this particular home and with this client, that he is never supposed to be left alone with one staff. So for Wood's Home to know this and still leave one person alone is the question that we have. And if they can clarify and let us know why it was okay for them to sort of ignore all the risk and put Debbie in the home of such a high risk individual that has a lot of history of hurting and harming individuals that have supported in the past. Then why was it okay for them to let Debbie stay there which led to their death.

CO: As you point out that you and her friends and family have a lot of questions about how this happened and how it could have been prevented. When you heard that Debbie had been alone in this room with this man, how did you react to that? What are you and your family and friends saying about that?

RO: I personally have been physically sick about Debbie's death. From that moment up until now as you can hear from my voice, I have had one admission at the emergency hospital. And this goes to tell you how much I personally have been affected. And I know that her family is still in deep shock. So I guess it's right for me to say that we are angry, we are sad, more so because we believe that Debbie should be here with us right now. If the agency had paid attention to the concerns of their many staff who kept telling them many times that they didn't feel safe in this home working with clients alone.

CO: So you heard that the staff and your friend Debbie felt unsafe. Did she speak to you about that? Did Debbie tell you that she didn't feel secure in this facility?

RO: Debbie had mentioned before she went to this home, she had talked and discussed with me the many risk that she is exposed to in this job. I myself am a social worker too. And I've been exposed many times that I've almost come to the conclusion that maybe this is not a field that I should be in. I'm questioning my career choices at this point. Debbie had similar concerns. But I said before that she is so committed, like many of us, that anytime we think of leaving our work we almost feel like we are abandoning our clients. We love to provide the care that we give to them because we know they are rising up in the morning and going back to bed in the night is somehow dependent on our being there. But in this particular case, Debbie's concern and many staff who have come forth so far were ignored.

CO: And what have you heard from Wood's Home? That's the facility. Have you heard anything from them about Debbie's death?

RO: Personally, I haven't been able to speak to anybody. I know that they have a representative who has been in contact with Debbie's sister, the late Debbie's sister. As far as I'm concerned, I have had no contact with Wood's Home. And at this point, I'm not sure if I'm ready to talk to Wood's Home yet.

CO: Debbie -- was she supporting anyone? Did she have a family that she was providing for?

RO: Yes. Debbie is the first daughter of eight children. She has brothers, younger brothers and sisters, that she was helping to take care of. She was almost like the mother. Their mother passed away many years ago. So Debbie took that role upon herself. I know that many times that she would send money back home to help take care of the younger siblings. She was really a wonderful woman with a big heart. And although we grieve, although we are sad, I feel like she almost put herself -- it's almost like her death to me is almost a sacrifice. Again, I say that because many caregivers in this field working in the front lines have lost our voice. We have not been able. And like I said, even when we have concerns and we bring it to the attention of the management of our individual agencies, it is often ignored. That is why I call out for the social justice and I desire so much. Instead of being angry, we should put that into a positive energy and to call out for a change because this is not the first time something like this is happening in this industry. And every time it happens, we are told that better measurement were going to be put in place only for us to wake up to another horrific incident happening again.

CO: Rebecca, I appreciate that with every voice you have left that you have shared it with us to tell this story. And I thank you.

RO: Yes. Thank you very much.

KG: Rebecca Opoku is a care worker in Calgary. Her friend Deborah Onwu was killed last month while working in a Wood's Homes assisted living facility in Calgary. We contacted Wood's Homes for a statement and they sent us the following. Quote, "Wood's Homes takes its responsibility in promoting a safe workplace very seriously. We are working with our staff to address the issues stemming from this very sad incident. We are fully cooperating with investigations underway by both Occupational Health and Safety and Calgary Police Services. And are conducting our own investigation. Our thoughts are with the family of Debbie Onwu and our Wood's Holmes family in the midst of this tragedy."

[Music]

Quebec Experience Program

KG: It's called the Quebec Experience Program -- PEQ for short. And for some newcomers to Quebec, it's not really been the experience they'd hoped for. Here's how it worked. You'd go to Quebec, you'd study, you get a degree or diploma, and you're fast tracked for permanent residence. But last week, Quebec's Immigration Minister, Simon Jolin-Barrette, announced sweeping changes to the program. Meaning that many academic disciplines and specialties no longer qualified. And he made it retroactive. Now thousands of students who thought they'd put in the work to ensure a future in Quebec are in limbo. Many of them have been working part-time while they study, buying homes, and setting up their families. One of them is Jin Xing -- who came to Quebec from China. She was among several dozen international students who joined politicians from three Quebec opposition parties at a news conference at Quebec's National Assembly. They called for the government to backtrack on its reforms. Here's Jin Xing, for the record.

SOUNDCLIP

JIN XING: My husband and I -- we have been here for three years. We already bought a house in Chateauguay. And I'm learning French very hard. I spend night hours to practice my French. And my husband also works hard. We have a big dream over here. And we love this country. We are working so hard. We have thousands of families behind us who are counting on us. There are so many people who come to Canada looking forward to a new life because Canada is a really good country for us. Democratic. The society, the people, the environment -- we enjoy our life over here. And we are already working very hard to stay over here. We come over here because the older policy is like a contract. You need to respect the contract. Right now you're just like -- you know cancel the contract without listening to the arguments of the people like us. We are humans. We are abundant. We are abundant right now.

KG: For the record, that Jin Xing who came to Quebec from China with her husband three years ago as an international student. She was speaking at Quebec's National Assembly as part of a group of students and opposition politicians who want the Quebec government to backtrack on planned changes to the immigration system.

[Music]

Oklahoma commutations

Guest: Jason Dunnington

KG: In Oklahoma, more than 450 inmates left prison yesterday after being released early. It's being called the largest single-day commutation in US history. And it comes after voters passed a measure that changed some offenses from felonies to misdemeanors. Over the years, Oklahoma, along with Louisiana, has held the title of the highest incarceration rate in the nation. Jason Dunnington is a Democratic member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives. He co-authored the bill that allowed for yesterday's releases. We reached him in Oklahoma City.

CO: Representative Dunnington I understand that you were at a correctional facility when 70 women were released yesterday. Can you describe what that was like to see?

JASON DUNNINGTON: Yeah, it was it was one of the highlights of my legislative career so far to be at a place where both family members and people in the community, non-profit, government, all were there almost in celebration of second chances for Oklahoma citizens. To see women walk out one at a time in their street clothes and be met by family members. There was a woman who hadn't seen her three children in over eight years. A woman that hadn't held her grandchildren ever so it was the first time she got to hold them. It was emotional, you know, hard to hold back tears, but just an incredible day.

CO: And these were inmates. They were released because their offenses have now been reclassified as misdemeanors. Is that right?

JD: Yeah, that's correct. So back in 2016, the State of Oklahoma, through our initiative petition process, put a ballot measure on for the people of Oklahoma to vote for. And essentially it was reclassification of low level possession of marijuana as well as property crimes under a thousand dollars were reclassified from felony to misdemeanor. But we had a population of a thousand or so incarcerated persons that were currently serving their sentence for what would now be just a misdemeanor. And what our bill aimed to do was to make that retroactive.

CO: And what about people who have already served a full sentence for some of these crimes? Will they still have a felony on their record?

JD: That was actually a huge part of this bill -- house bill 1269 -- that we put up for a vote this year in the legislature. And because of its passage, there are some 60,000 plus Oklahoma citizens that currently have a felony possession charge on their record that can now, because of this bill, have that expunged from their record.

CO: Can you explain why Oklahoma has had the highest incarceration rate of any state in the US? And just to give some perspective for Canadians, I understand that Oklahoma's incarceration rate is more than 10 times that of Canada's. And that you have had 1 in 100 Oklahoma adults locked up at any given time. Why such a high rate?

JD: Yeah, it's certainly not something that we're proud of here. And what I would say, whenever I travel places outside of Oklahoma, I often talk about one of the best things about Oklahoma is our people. So I'd certainly don't think we have the worst people, but our incarceration rate wouldn't show you that. I think a big part of it has to do with us being middle of the country, you know more religious, conservative state. And sometimes those things have come together in a way that has had us wanting to levy judgment more on folks for things that we were mad at them for instead of just incarcerating people that we were really afraid of or really needed to be behind bars. You know, it's taken us a long time to figure this out, but I think that we have taken great steps in the right direction in order to start rethinking the way that we look at justice in Oklahoma. Understanding that we're a fairly high poverty state and a lot of what we find is that you know persons that don't have access to substance abuse counseling or substance abuse services or persons that don't have access to mental health counseling or mental health services, oftentimes end up incarcerated and end up in our justice system. And we need to deal with those things as well so that we can prevent more of this instead of just react to it on the backside.

CO: But this punitive tough-on-crime approach in Oklahoma -- a lot of these laws were passed by Republican governments. And yet Republicans support this move. How have they had a change of mind, do you think, in Oklahoma?

JD: I think because of our constitution, which allows people to put referendums on our ballot for a full statewide vote. It is a piece that has helped hold our legislature accountable. It is being used in Oklahoma as a way for people to have their voice heard more so than they have felt like that the legislature has done their will. Oklahoma is a very populous state, always has been. And for a very long time, it was Democrats that were in charge in Oklahoma. And it wasn't until the 2000s until Republicans took control of most statewide offices and then supermajorities in the legislature. I think at our core we do want fairness in Oklahoma. And, you know unfortunately, because of partisan politics, that gets lost sometimes. And that was what was so unique about house bill 1269. I worked with one of my Republican colleagues and we chose early on that we were going to make it about the people of Oklahoma and keep the partisan stuff out of it. And because of that, I think we were successful.

CO: And in this bill, is there more to come? Because you still have quite a number of people in your state prison population, do you not?

JD: Yeah. There's a lot more to come. We were a few votes away from passing sweeping cash bail reform in Oklahoma. Sentencing reform is a huge part of what we need to do. We know with this recent bill, house bill 1269, and doing the commutations that was a great like I said, first start. But without sentencing reform, it's going to be difficult for us to really start moving that that number down in a significant way. And so, yeah, there's a lot more work for us to do here in the State of Oklahoma.

CO: I'm sure a lot of other places, other states, and parts of Canada will be watching your progress. Representative Dunnington I appreciate speaking with you.

JD: Thank you.

KG: That was Jason Dunnington, a member of the Oklahoma House of Representatives. He was in Oklahoma City.

[Music]

Giant Mine

KG: Workers of the Giant Mine outside of Yellowknife had been on strike for four months when the unspeakable happened. On September 18, 1992, an underground blast rocked the mine, killing nine miners, including six employees who'd cross the picket lines. Now, Roger Warren, the man who was convicted of their death, has died. He was 75. Mr. Warren spent 18 years in prison for nine counts of second degree murder. In the days following the attack, former As It Happens host Michael Enright spoke with Royal Oak miner Fred Couch. Here's part of that conversation from our archives.

SOUNDCLIP

MICHAEL ENRIGHT: Mr. Couch, as someone who used to work in the mine and who's been on strike for all this time, what went through your head when you heard about the explosion on Friday?

FRED COUCH: Sadness. The people that were killed with this explosion were friends of ours. And there were workers that had made a decision to go back to work. But they were still friends.

MICHAEL ENRIGHT: You knew some of these people?

FRED COUCH: Yes, I did. I knew most of them.

MICHAEL ENRIGHT: I don't know what goes through someone on a picket line in a strike like this. But did you ever have any idea that anything approaching this could happen?

FRED COUCH: No. Our men in the picket line were under a lot of pressure. But as far as the explosion goes, no. This was never expected by anybody from CASAW.

MICHAEL ENRIGHT: You're in a strange position. Many of those men who died were your friends. Yet there is a feeling in the town that either directly or indirectly, the strikers were somehow responsible for the explosion.

FRED COUCH: Well, the feeling in a town only goes by what was brought out by the police. We have to emphasize that nobody in CASAW Local 4 wants anybody to die because of a strike. You have to realize we are human beings. We know what it is to work underground. And if anybody did this, in my opinion, it certainly wasn't nobody from CASAW.

MICHAEL ENRIGHT: You have kids?

FRED COUCH: Yes, I do.

MICHAEL ENRIGHT: What do you tell them about what's happened?

FRED COUCH: Well, we try and sit down and explain to them that something has happened, and if it has been by somebody, they were a bad person. If it is accidental then of course the blame is on nobody. I think the kids in the school are handling this pretty good. They have counselors there explaining that you can't put the blame on somebody until the evidence is in.

KG: From the As It Happens archives, that's former host Michael Enright speaking with Royal Oak miner Fred Couch days after a bomb at Yellowknife's Giant Mine killed nine workers in 1992. Roger Warren, the man convicted in that bombing, has now died. He was 75.

[Music]

Cat touchdown

KG: New York Giants fans are used to bad luck. Their team is two in seven so far this season. But this morning they can at least blame their misfortune on a dark interloper. Last night, the football team was ahead nine to three against the Dallas Cowboys when that interloper dashed onto the field at MetLife Stadium, wearing no number -- just a black coat. It was quick on its feet, evading security for two minutes as it made an offensive play of its own. A New York fan captured that moment from the stands.

SOUNDCLIP

[Crowd shouting]

VOICE 1: He is at the 30! The 25! The 20! He is at the 15! He is going home! He is going all the way! A black cat -- he just stopped. There he goes! He is approaching it. Go! Go! Go! Go! Don't stop now! Keep on going! Touchdown!

[Crowd shouting]

KG: A New York Giants fan giving the play-by-play after a black cat ran onto the field during last night's NFL game. And it didn't just interrupt the home team's game, it cursed it. Despite a field goal after play resumed the Giants eventually lost their lead and Dallas went on to win the game 37 to 18.

[Music]

CO: We are at the end of this edition of As It Happens. Our show can be heard Monday to Friday on CBC Radio One. And if you want to listen to our program live or on demand anytime, make sure you download the CBC Listen app. I'm Carol Off. Thanks for listening.

Provide Transcript Feedback

CBC would like to acknowledge the support of the Broadcasting Accessibility Fund.

November 5, 2019 Episode Transcript

Social Sharing

More from this episode